Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rightpedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Rightpedia

Rightpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find a single reliable source that reports on Rightpedia in depth, aside from the two SPLC articles which are equally, if not more about Wikipedia/WMF's policies. This website woefully fails

• Delete, possibly speedy - may fail
  WP:A7 as there is not a shred of notability to be seen. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Kirbanzo I considered that first but the SPLC piece is significant despite not establishing notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - poor existing sourcing, and a Google search uncovers no media coverage. The SPLC alert, which is listed twice, isn't enough. Fails
  WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this is the worst sourcing I've ever seen; Stormfront, Twitter, Wikipediocracy, and
  π, ν) 19:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Hilariously poor referencing. There's some mildly interesting results on Google News, but nothing close to establishing notability. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very poor reference. Not very interesting at all. INeedSupport (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly
  WP:SALT due to notability concerns namely being just self published sources out there. I would add salt here due to the socks that were all recently caught editing this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete fails notability, poor sourcing. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (fully protected) with an optional very minimal merge to Metapedia where there is already a short explanation of this topic. That paragraph is sufficient coverage given that this is only a very minimally notable topic. If that can be expanded very slightly with a very little of the material here, and one or two of the better references, then that would be OK but I don't see sufficient sources for this to have its own article or even a large section in any other article. It is sufficient that anybody who wishes to know what it is can search for it and get redirected to a short paragraph telling them what it is. This is not the sort of topic where greater detail adds greater edification.
  Whatever the outcome here, I recommend permanent full protection in order to prevent the lolnazis and their sockpuppets from messing around with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with redirecting is that the sentence about it is totally unsourced. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is the SPLC source for that, so delete and redirect makes sense. The most important part is delete though, considering the total lack of significant coverage. Regards SoWhy 10:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy Normally I wouldn't push back on this but the one sentence mention of Rightpedia in the SPLC article supports virutally nothing in the paragraph on Metapedia. It's hardly meaningful and saying "Rightpedia was created by a neo-nazi from Metapedia" is rather silly. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: It supports the fact that RP is a fork of MP and since RP is a possible search term, it makes sense to redirect as long as it's mentioned in the MP article. As I said though, deletion is more important. Redirect can always be created later. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Much as I am sure this must be notable, I can actually find no decent sources for it. So I have to vote delete.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. Redirect so long as the mention at Metapedia stays. Don't see a need to salt yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:SALT yet. -- Dane ^talk 16:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and salt. Not notable. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 23:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nominator should try
  ^^^ 15:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and then redirect to Metapedia (again on the basis it's discussed there, so a redirect makes sense and allows someone searching us something to find, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to have somewhere where it's made clear how disgusting the site is. Don't salt, I don't think there's a need yet. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.